CIA spook slays 2 in pakistan

[Bill Thompson]

I think the guy is Delta and very important.

Dalton Furry wrote in his book I read that Delta Agents work closely with the CIA.

I think there is a lot more to this story and I think he was there gathering information that someone high up in the Pakistani government is involved with Osama bin Laden since an eye witness said that it was a Pakistani helocopter that wisked Osama bin Laden out of Torra Borra.

 

[sarge]

when has the us returned a murder suspect due to diplomatic immunity? And as I said if the roles were reversed and it became a big media story it is inconceivable that this guy would be released from American custody to Pakistan. Can you imagine the political outrage ? Can you imagine the nationalistic tub thumping? If you reject a zero probability it'd be damn close to zero and nowhere near 50/50.

You are missing the point. It matters not the severity of the crime. Once granted, diplomatic immunity is not waiverable by the country that grants it - it is only waiverable by the country that requested it.

It is a fact that the US has honored diplomatic immunity for suspected criminals on many occasions, and so far as I can find has never refused to honor diplomatic immunity. Certainly, we've honored the principle at a much higher than 50% rate.

I can well imagine the outrage should the positions be reversed. Of course, we would honor diplomatic immunity under identical circumstances because it would serve our best interests to do so. We need Pakistan more than they need us right now.

A solution to the impasse in this case would be for the US to waive immunity, in exchange for a non-public assurance that his trial would be swift, his sentence harsh, and a quick remand to the US for execution of the sentence.

tit for tat understanding is essential to understanding the likely and expected reaction from Pakistan. That's where the empathy withthe situation comes from

While I have a reasonable understanding of why this is a big deal for Pakistan, empathy isn't particularly helpful in this case.

re the rules of law - as I've said before , extrajudicial kidnap by a foreign government, detention without trial and torture are all against plenty of national and international laws - the us is happy to break these at will, it somewhat undermines the "but you signed this bit of paper" argument.

Actually, none of those extra-judicial activities has any bearing on this particular incident. Nations commit "crimes" against other nations all the time, for a variety of reasons. It is neither unusual or particularly important. Most of the "outrage" one nation expresses with another is feigned and simply for public consumption.

If this had never been made public in either country, it would have been handled at the attache level.

You didn't answer whether there was any crime comitted by a Pakistani spy fir which you would want diplomatic immunity revoked....surely this is an essential question, diplomatic immunity is either irrevokable or it isn't, once it is it's just a matter of degrees.

You aren't asking an answerable question. Diplomatic immunity is not revokable by the issuing nation. If you are asking whether there is some crime so horrendous that I'd support the US ignoring diplomatic immunity, then yes there is. I'd support the US ignoring diplomatic immunity any time we could do so without causing more problems than we solve.

 

[sarge]

The only similar example of a death caused by a diplomat on American soil that I can find is a Georgian diplomat who killed somone drink driving in 1997. The outcome (for a much less serious offence than double murder) was that Georgia waived diplomatic immunity and he was charged and convicted of manslaughter. One would imagine there was considerable diplomatic pressure behind the scenes to secure a conviction.

The key is that Georgia waived diplomatic immunity - the US did not ignore it. That we brought pressure to bear isn't particularly important.

Should we sucumb to Pakistani pressure and waive diplomatic immunity, I'd consider that an acceptable outcome in this case. As there is no chance of a fair trial, either the guy would have forfeited his life in service to the US, or he is a murderer.

 

[andyandy]

Sarge,

thanks for your detailed reply. I'm not sure we are too far away from agreement. I think the best (most likely?) outcome will be for the US to waive diplomatic immunity and let the guy take his chances with Pakistani justice. Best for relations between the two countries though obviously not best for the chap in question. I'm sure by now the US know the details if the case, ie whether it was in self defence, and of course they will know just what he was up to. I presume this will affect their decision. Best case scenario would be strong evidence of self defence allowing a guilty verdict with a shortish sentence and a transfer to US custody after a year or two.....

I can't see how hardballing over diplomatic immunity would be in the US' national interests, so unless this guy is really really important I don't think they will......

 

[sarge]

I think the guy is Delta and very important.

Dalton Furry wrote in his book I read that Delta Agents work closely with the CIA.

I think there is a lot more to this story and I think he was there gathering information that someone high up in the Pakistani government is involved with Osama bin Laden since an eye witness said that it was a Pakistani helocopter that wisked Osama bin Laden out of Torra Borra.

While SFOD-D (Delta is a part of the uniformed services, it is not, as it is often portrayed in movies, a spook agency) does cooperate with several Alphabet Soup agencies downrange, Delta does not have "agents" that operate as single-man units in this fashion. The guy may conceivably be a former Delta operator, or he might be ISA, or he might be an active CIA-SAD dude, but he is most likely a civilian contracted security specialist working directly for the CIA and retired from one of our DoD special operations forces.

I doubt he was engaged in direct surveillance on the Pakistani goverment as a primary role - the embassy is actually a poor place to work if your sole function is to spy and remain covert. I think it'll turn out that he was employed to provide PSD services.

 

[sarge]

Sarge,

thanks for your detailed reply. I'm not sure we are too far away from agreement. I think the best (most likely?) outcome will be for the US to waive diplomatic immunity and let the guy take his chances with Pakistani justice. Best for relations between the two countries though obviously not best for the chap in question. I'm sure by now the US know the details if the case, ie whether it was in self defence, and of course they will know just what he was up to. I presume this will affect their decision. Best case scenario would be strong evidence of self defence allowing a guilty verdict with a shortish sentence and a transfer to US custody after a year or two.....

I can't see how hardballing over diplomatic immunity would be in the US' national interests, so unless this guy is really really important I don't think they will......

The harder the US pushes for immunity, the more likely it is that he knows stuff the US doesn't want Pakistan to know he knows. I expect the US is willing to fight hard over this one only if we can't afford for the guy to talk much.

 

[andyandy]

Interesting article in the guardian arguing that this chap either doesn't have diplomatic immunity, or even if he does, it would be needed to shown that this was an act "performed within the course of his duty..."

Full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by "diplomatic agents". Those are defined at article 1 (e) of the Vienna convention as "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission". Helpfully the diplomatic staff are further defined in the preceding article as "having diplomatic rank". Those ranks are an ascending series of concrete titles from third secretary through to ambassador or high commissioner. Davis did not have a diplomatic rank.

But there is a second category of "administrative and technical staff" of a mission. They enjoy a limited diplomatic immunity which, however, specifically excludes "acts performed outside the course of their duties". (Vienna convention article 37/2.) Frantic off-the-record briefing by the state department reflected widely in the media indicates that the US case is that Davis was a member of technical staff covered by this provision.

But in that case the US has to explain in the course of precisely which diplomatic duties Davis needed to carry a Glock handgun, a headband-mounted flashlight and a pocket telescope. The Vienna convention lists the legitimate duties of an embassy, and none of them need that kind of equipment.

It appears in any event unlikely that Davis ever was a member of the technical staff of the embassy or consulate. Under article 10 of the Vienna convention the host authorities must be formally informed – by diplomatic note – of the arrival and departures of such staff, and as embassies under article 11 are subject to agreed numerical limits, that in practice occurs when another member of staff is leaving. If this was not done Davis was not covered even in the course of his duties.

Pakistani senior ex-military sources tell me there is no note appointing Davis as embassy or consulate staff, and that appears to pass a commonsense test – if the note exists, why have the Americans not produced it?

Finally, possession of a diplomatic passport does not give you diplomatic status all over the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../28/cia-agent-diplomat-pakistan-raymond-davis

 

[andyandy]

A bit more on alleged crimes committed by diplomats in the UK:

Foreign diplomats can get away with murder. They are also escaping prosecution for rape, child abuse, indecent assault,fraud, bribery and possession of drugs and firearms.

For the first time, figures have been released showing the crimes committed by those who work behind the elegant facades of London's embassies. They reveal that between 1999 and 2004, 122 serious offences were allegedly committed by embassy staff - and Britain is powerless to prosecute. These include allegations of murder by a Colombian diplomat, two counts of indecent assault from South Africa - including an incident of drunken groping - and Morrocan embassy officials accused of rape and child abuse.

Embassy staff from France and Germany, stand accused of assault; while India is accused of conspiracy to steal; Germany of facilitating illegal immigration to the UK; and the Dominican Republic of fraud and money laundering.

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention, foreign officials, their spouses, children and staff are protected from prosecution by their host country.

The State Immunity Act 1978, the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1967 and the Consular Relations Act 1968 all carry additional protection for embassy staff. Personnel accused of a serious crime cannot be touched by UK law unless the sending state waives immunity to allow prosecution.

The only sanction the British government can impose is to declare embassy staff persona non grata, give them a police escort to the airport and put them on a plane home. In 2002 it was only the personal intervention of Tony Blair that pressured Colombia into waiving diplomatic immunity after two of its nationals, one a diplomat, were accused of murdering Damian Broom, a 23-year-old Tesco warehouseman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ecret-crimes-of-londons-diplomats-408170.html

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think the guy is Delta and very important.

Nope.

I think you have seen to much Hollywood.

 

[Eddie Dane]

He probably thought he was going to be the subject of some grainy AQ beheading video.
I can't blame him for shooting those guys.

But the issue is thorny and has great effect on public opinion in Pak, so some symbolic punishment would be in order.